Predictors of Cochlear Implant Performance

References

• Hochmair-Desoyer U, Hochmair E S, Fischer R E, Burian K. Cochlear prostheses in use: recent speech comprehension results. Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 1980; 229: 81–98
   Google Scholar
• Gantz B J, Tyler R S, Abbas P, Tye-Murray N, Knutson J F, McCare B F, Lansing C, Brown C, Woodworth G, Hinrichs J, Kuk F. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audio-logic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope 1988; 98: 1100–1106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkin J L, Stewart B E, Dankowski K, Haas L J. Prognosticating speech performance in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 101: 314–319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea J J, III, Domico E H, Orchik D J. Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Laryngoscope 1990; 100: 223–226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltzman S B, Cohen N L, Shapiro W H, Hoffman R A. The prognostic value of round window electrical stimulation in cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 103: 102–106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kileny P R, Kemink J L, Zimmermann-Phillips S, Schmaltz S P. Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 563–568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blarney P J, Pyman B C, Clark G M, Dowell R C, Gordon M, Brown A M, Hollow R D. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in post-linguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101: 342–348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Lawson D T, Finley C C, Wolford R D. Importance of patient and processor variables in determining outcomes with cochlear implants. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 373–379
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lawson D T, Wilson B S, Finley C C. New processing for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Progr Brain Res 1993; 97: 313–321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B J, Woodworth G G, Knutson J F, Abbas P J, Tyler R S. Multivariate predictors of audio-logical success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993; 102: 909–916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipp D B, Nedzelski J M. Prognostic value of round-window phychophysical testing with cochlear-implant candidates. J Otolaryngol 1994; 23: 172–176
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Olphen A F, Van Dijk J E, Langereis M C, Smoorenburg G F. Recognition of Dutch phonemes by cochlear implant users with the multipeak strategy. Speech and Hearing Symposium. 1995; 365–368, Proceedings of the International Cochlear Implant
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Lawson D T, Zerbi M. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Second Quarterly Progress Report NIH Contract N01-DC-5-210. 1996; 3
   Google Scholar
• Loeb G E. Cochlear prosthetics. Ann Rev Neurosci 1990; 13: 357–371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk J E, Van Olphen A F, Smoorenburg G F. Preoperative electrical nerve stimulation as one of the criteria for selection. Adv Otorhino-laryngol 1993; 48: 103–107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shipp D B, Nedzelski J M. Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Speech and Hearing Symposium. 1995; 194–196, Proceedings of the International Cochlear Implant
   Google Scholar
• Battmer R D, Gupta S P, Allum-Mecklenburg D J, Lenarz T. Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Speech and Hearing Symposium. 1995; 185–187, Proceedings of the International Cochlear Implant
   Google Scholar
• Shallop J K, Arndt P L, Turnacliff K A. Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: perceptual results in seven adults with residual hearing. JSLPA 1992; 16: 141–148
   Google Scholar
• Gantz B J. Issues of candidate selection for a cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1989; 22: 239–247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deguine O, Fraysse B, Uziel A, Cochard N, Reuillard-Artieres F, Piron J P, Mondain M. Predictive factors in cochlear implant surgery. Cochlear Implants: New Perspectives (Advances in Otorhino-laryngology), B Fraysse, O Deguine. Karger, Basle 1993; 48: 142–145
   Google Scholar
• Lehnhardt E, Aschendorff A. Prognostic factors in 187 adults provided with the nucleus cochlear mini-system 22, predictive factors in cochlear implant surgery. Cochlear Implants: New Perspectives (Advances in Otorhinolaryngology), B Fraysse, O Deguine. Karger, Basle 1993; 48: 146–52
   Google Scholar
• Knutson J F, Gantz B J, Hinrichs J V, Schartz H A, Tyler R S, Woodworth G. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 817–822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berliner K. Selection of cochlear implant patients. Cochlear implant, R A Schindler, M M Merchenich. Raven Press, New York 1985; 395
   Google Scholar
• Wiet R J, Pyle G M, Oconnor C A, Russell E, Schramm D R. Computed tomography: how accurate a predictor for cochlear implantation?. Laryngoscope 1990; 100: 687–692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spies T H, Snik A FM, Mens L HM, Van D, en Broek P. Ear canal electrodes versus promontory electrodes in preoperative electrical stimulation for cochlear implant selection. Adv Otorhino-laryngol 1993; 48: 108–113
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilde G JS. Amsterdamse biografische vragen-lijst. Swets & Zeitlinger, LisseThe Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Buijk C A. Algemene gehandicapten attitude schaal. Swets & Zeitlinger, LisseThe Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Bennett G K, Seashore H G, Wesman A G. Differential aptitude test. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Brokx J PL, Beynon A J, Van Durme M, Timmermans B. Ontwikkeling van Nederland-stalige tests. Logopedie en Foniatrie 1987; 6: 113–116
   Google Scholar
• Bosman A J. chapter 3. Speech perception by the hearing impaired. University of Utrecht, The Netherlands 1989, Thesis
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R, Mimpen A M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979; 18: 43–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pijfers L, de Vries L A, Merks I, Arts C. Intercom. 1967, Werkboek met taal en communicatie-oefeningen voor volwassenen met afasie
   Google Scholar
• Usseldijk F. Lnteractief Spraakafzien en Gehoor, Testprogramma handleiding. The Netherlands, Institute for the Deaf Sint Michielsgestel 1990
   Google Scholar
• Osberger M J, Miyamoto R T, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kemink J L, Stroer B S, Firszt J B, Novak M A. Independent evaluation of the speech perception abilities of children with the Nucleus 22-channel Cochlear implant system. Ear Hear Suppl. 1991; 12: 66S–80S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito J. Auditory cortex activities in severely hearing impaired and cochlear implant patients. Adv Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 1993; 48: 29–34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smoorenburg G F, van Olphen A F. Pre-operative electrostimulation of the auditory nerve and post-operative results with the House/3M cochlear implant. Cochlear Implant Symposium Düren, 1987; 227
   Google Scholar